Sampras Greatest Ever?

[flying24]

By the end of 2009 Fed's accomplishements will probably include:

7 Wimbledons-tieing Sampras, but unlike Sampras his will have been 7 in a row

5 or 6 U.S Opens-tieing or breaking the Open era record of Sampras and Connors but he will have 3 in a row unlike them

around 18 grand slams-the record will be smashed by that point, he probably is going to win all but about 2 of the slams remaining the next 3 years

over 300 weeks at #1. he probably is going to still have not lost the #1 ranking by the time 2009 ends. This will give him 6 year end #1s, tieing Sampras, but his will be with no time lost at #1 once he took it after the first month of 2004, the 300+ weeks at #1 total will also break the 286 weeks record Pete currently holds.

4 or 5 Australian Opens. Breaking the Open era record.

1 Calender grand slam probably.

His record will make it almost undisputable he is the best ever. Talking about his competition level or other things will almost become irrelevant. The talks then will become who is the 2nd best ever among Sampras, Laver, Borg, and others. Federer will be not even worth discussing.

 

[Ljubicic for number1]

By the end of 2009 Fed's accomplishements will probably include:

7 Wimbledons-tieing Sampras, but unlike Sampras his will have been 7 in a row

5 or 6 U.S Opens-tieing or breaking the Open era record of Sampras and Connors but he will have 3 in a row unlike them

around 18 grand slams-the record will be smashed by that point, he probably is going to win all but about 2 of the slams remaining the next 3 years

over 300 weeks at #1. he probably is going to still have not lost the #1 ranking by the time 2009 ends. This will give him 6 year end #1s, tieing Sampras, but his will be with no time lost at #1 once he took it after the first month of 2004, the 300+ weeks at #1 total will also break the 286 weeks record Pete currently holds.

4 or 5 Australian Opens. Breaking the Open era record.

1 Calender grand slam probably.

His record will make it almost undisputable he is the best ever. Talking about his competition level or other things will almost become irrelevant. The talks then will become who is the 2nd best ever among Sampras, Laver, Borg, and others. Federer will be not even worth discussing.

Quiet a funny post , thanks for the entertainment.

 

[flying24]

The funniest thing of all is what I said is completely realisic. His winning the next 3 Wimbledons is a very good chance. Quite a good chance he wins either 2 of the next 3 U.S Opens-losing 1, or wins 3 of 3. Quite a good chance he wins eitehr 1 of the next 2 Australian Opens-losing 1, or wins 2 of 2. Likely he will win 1 or 2 French Opens of the next 3 as Nadal's dominance on clay looks unlikely to continue at its current pace, and win all 4 once in the same year. Unlikely he will be dislodged from #1 for atleast another 3 years when he is literaly chasms ahead of the next best player now. It would take atleast 2 full years of constantly closing the gap to actualy catch him to rival him for #1.

All of that is not far fetched at all, it is very realistic. Certainly moreso then Ivan Ljubicic making it to #1, LOL, now that is really funny.

 

[shakes1975]

ok, this "sampras faced better competition" is getting tiring, and is not a fact.
now, i will admit that sampras faced more "varied" competition, but not necessarily better. here are the numbers that prove my point.

firstly, we must assume that every top player keeps working on his game throughout his career. the tennis ladder is basically like a marathon: you keep running to stay in the same place. the day u stop working or improving in different aspects of ur game, u will be overrun. that's a fact. sampras was a better S & V'er in 1999 than he was in 1992, that's a fact. so, i assume the same for all players. however, there comes a time in every sportsman's career where the point of diminishing returns is reached. basically, a stage where the results are consistently poorer than they were, irrespective of the hard work put in, due to age, fitness etc. etc. that's when we know that a player is past his prime.

we must assume that sampras was a better player in 1993 than he was in 1990. similarly, he was a better player in 1995 than he was in 1993.

now, looking at the list of competitors that were provided to prove that sampras faced greater competition, we have:

edberg - he beat sampras in 1992 USO F, 1993 AO SF. but he never faced sampras in a SLAM after that (so, basically, he never faced the REAL sampras). edberg won his last slam in 1992. in 1993, he was just a solid player, past his prime.

becker - becker faced sampras only 3 times in SLAMS in his whole career, that too only at wim. his only notable achievements at other venues are 1995 USO SF, 1996 AO W, 1997 wim QF.

agassi - agassi played sampras close only in 1995 and post-1999. where was agassi in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998 ? agassi played sampras only 4 times in slams till 1999 wim.

ivanisevic - lets' face it. this guy was a choker. 1994 wim F. the guy hits 2 aces in every service game UNTIL the tie-breaks. then, his first serve disappears. 1995 wim SF, he should've won this in straights (read his post-match interview, he said the same thing), 1998 wim F - he won the first set, had 2 set points in the second set looking at a sampras second serve. what does he do ? hit the return straight into the net.

he faced sampras 5 times in his whole career in slams (1992 wim, 1994 wim, 1995 wim, 1996 USO, 1998 wim)

rafter - another solid but not brilliant player. he would've lost to sampras in the 1998 uso sf. he only faced sampras 2 times in his whole career in slams (1998 uso sf, 2000 wim f).

courier - his game was limited. he basically dominated when sampras was still developing his game, and when edberg and becker were past their primes. remember how edberg demolished courier in the 1991 USO F ? that same courier beat sampras in the QF that yr. courier then crushed edberg in the 1993 wim SF. so, what does that tell u ? it tells us that edberg was past his prime in 1993 wim. he played sampras 8 times in SLAMs, including the FO.

bruguera - he never even played sampras outside of the FO. 2 times at the FO - 1993, 1996.

look at fed's rivals. fed played:

hewitt - 2004 AO, 2004 wim, 2004 USO, 2005 wim, 2005 USO
roddick - 2003 wim, 2004 wim, 2005 wim, 2006 uso, 2007 ao
safin - 2004 ao, 2005 ao
nadal - 2005 fo, 2006 fo, 2006 wim
nalbandian - 2003 ao, 2003 uso, 2004 ao, 2005 wim

and i haven't even counted others like blake, ljubicic, ancic, gonzalez etc.

fed is playing his top rivals more often and at later stages in slams. so, this essentially either means that these guys are really good players, capable of consistently reaching sf,f's of slams or that the whole atp field is very poor. the latter idea is ridiculous, so i must assume the former is correct.

 

[BlankenshipBabaganoosh]

yes, best ever, no doubt, regardless of what fed does

 

[FiveO]

ok, this "sampras faced better competition" is getting tiring, and is not a fact.
now, i will admit that sampras faced more "varied" competition, but not necessarily better. here are the numbers that prove my point.

firstly, we must assume that every top player keeps working on his game throughout his career. the tennis ladder is basically like a marathon: you keep running to stay in the same place. the day u stop working or improving in different aspects of ur game, u will be overrun. that's a fact. sampras was a better S & V'er in 1999 than he was in 1992, that's a fact. so, i assume the same for all players. however, there comes a time in every sportsman's career where the point of diminishing returns is reached. basically, a stage where the results are consistently poorer than they were, irrespective of the hard work put in, due to age, fitness etc. etc. that's when we know that a player is past his prime.

we must assume that sampras was a better player in 1993 than he was in 1990. similarly, he was a better player in 1995 than he was in 1993.

now, looking at the list of competitors that were provided to prove that sampras faced greater competition, we have:

Interesting facts:

edberg - he beat sampras in 1992 USO F, 1993 AO SF. but he never faced sampras in a SLAM after that (so, basically, he never faced the REAL sampras). edberg won his last slam in 1992. in 1993, he was just a solid player, past his prime.

In '93 Edberg reached:

AO Final
RG QF
Wimbledon SF

Reached 1 Master's Series final, 2 SF's and 1 QF out of 5 events he played, qualified for the TMC final eight for the 8th time in 9 years and finished the year ranked #5 in the world.

In '94

AO SF. In Masters Events, won 1, finalled in another, reached 2 SF and 1 QF in seven events entered, qualified for his 9th TMC in 10 years and finished the year at #7.

Edberg's rankings

End of '91 ranked #1 for second year in a row
End of '92 ranked #2 won his last slam
End of '93 ranked #5
End of '94 ranked #7
End of '95 ranked #23
End of '96 ranked #14

Hewitt's rankings

End of 2002 ranked #1 for second year in a row, won his last slam
End of 2003 #17
End of 2004 #3
End of 2005 #4
End of 2006 #20
End of 2007 ?

Oh and Edberg was a 6 time slam winner not a 2 time winner.

becker - becker faced sampras only 3 times in SLAMS in his whole career, that too only at wim. his only notable achievements at other venues are 1995 USO SF, 1996 AO W, 1997 wim QF.

He finalled in the TMC three straight years from '94 to '96 winning it in '95. In '94 and '96 Sampras beat him in the final and Sampras's wins over him at the majors came on Becker's best slam surface.

agassi - agassi played sampras close only in 1995 and post-1999. where was agassi in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998 ? agassi played sampras only 4 times in slams till 1999 wim.

To answer your questions:

'93 he was losing in the QF to Sampras at Wimbledon and at the end of the year having wrist surgery.
'94 he was winning the USO and ranked #4 in the world.
'96 ranked number 8 in the world.
'97 slipped to 141 (compare to Safin and then count the majors)
'98 back to number 6 after winning five tour events, one a F over Sampras.

Between '93 and '99 they played to a h2h of Sampras 14 v. Agassi 7.

BTW Agassi's record against Fed's superior competition:

v. Nadal 0-2
v. Safin 3-3
v. Hewitt 4-4
v. Nalbandian 1-0
v. Roddick 5-1

And while you're asking questions, you should ask where Safin has been much of this era.

ivanisevic - lets' face it. this guy was a choker. 1994 wim F. the guy hits 2 aces in every service game UNTIL the tie-breaks. then, his first serve disappears. 1995 wim SF, he should've won this in straights (read his post-match interview, he said the same thing), 1998 wim F - he won the first set, had 2 set points in the second set looking at a sampras second serve. what does he do ? hit the return straight into the net.

he faced sampras 5 times in his whole career in slams (1992 wim, 1994 wim, 1995 wim, 1996 USO, 1998 wim)

The guy he lost to in those FIVE matches, was each time the eventual winner of the event. The other final he lost at Wimbledon was to the second best player of the era and next of that era to enter the Hall of Fame-Agassi.

This "choker" also reached a USO SF, 3 AO QF's and 2 RG QF's.

Ivanisevic won his fourth Wimbledon final in 2001, beating, in order, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman and Rafter in that final.

rafter - another solid but not brilliant player. he would've lost to sampras in the 1998 uso sf. he only faced sampras 2 times in his whole career in slams (1998 uso sf, 2000 wim f).

This Solid Player has won 2 majors at the USO and finalled in two others at Wimbledon. He also reached the SF of the other 2 majors, the AO and RG something Roddick and Hewitt and Safin can't claim.

courier - his game was limited. he basically dominated when sampras was still developing his game, and when edberg and becker were past their primes. remember how edberg demolished courier in the 1991 USO F ? that same courier beat sampras in the QF that yr. courier then crushed edberg in the 1993 wim SF. so, what does that tell u ? it tells us that edberg was past his prime in 1993 wim. he played sampras 8 times in SLAMs, including the FO.

Before you start denouncing Courier's game you should start examining Nadal and Hewitt's.

Courier is a former #1, unlike Nalbandian or anyone else not on your "A list". He won four majors the same count as Safin and Nadal combined and reached the final of 3 others also equalling those two. He also reached the final of all 4 slams. Neither Hewitt nor Nadal can claim that and probably never will.

Sampras played Courier in 8 majors, 4 in the QF's, 3 SF's and 1 final.

'93 Sampras beat him in the F of Wimbledon.
'94 Sampras beat him in the SF of the AO.
'94 Courier won in the QF of RG.
'95 Sampras beat Courier in the QF of the USO.
'95 Sampras beat Courier in the SF of the USO.
'96 Sampras beat Courier in the QF of RG.

Sampras played Courier a former #1, 6 times in the later rounds of majors between '93 and '99. If you're questioning games or longevity you better look long and hard at Hewitt.

bruguera - he never even played sampras outside of the FO. 2 times at the FO - 1993, 1996.

Bruguera is a 2 time RG winner and Sampras split with him there, on Bruguera's best surface.

look at fed's rivals. fed played:

hewitt - 2004 AO, 2004 wim, 2004 USO, 2005 wim, 2005 USO
roddick - 2003 wim, 2004 wim, 2005 wim, 2006 uso, 2007 ao
safin - 2004 ao, 2005 ao
nadal - 2005 fo, 2006 fo, 2006 wim
nalbandian - 2003 ao, 2003 uso, 2004 ao, 2005 wim

That's nineteen.

Sampras's records at the majors vs. others reaching 1 and 2 during just between '93 and '99:

Courier 6-2
Agassi 4-1
Chang 4-0
Becker 3-0 on Becker's best surface
Ivanisevic 4-1, 3 on Ivanisevic's best surface
Kafelnikov 1-1
Bruguera 1-1 on Bruguera's best surfaces
Moya 1-0
Muster 1-0
Rafter 0-1

That's 32. Since you're counting Nalabandian I'll add Martin, making it 37 meetings for Sampras against comparable competition with bigger resumes man for man.

and i haven't even counted others like blake, ljubicic, ancic, gonzalez etc.

Please do. And when you do you can then explain what they have done at the majors with any consistency.

Compare any of these guys to Todd Martin and they come up on the losing end as far as performing at the majors. Martin blows Nalbandian out of the water.

Then realize we haven't addressed slam winners and multi-slam finalists, Stich, Kafelnikov, Moya, Chang and Korda, slam winner and mult-slam semi-finalist Krajicek and Muster, and multi-slam finalist and a SF at all slams, Cedric Pioline to compare to Blake, Ljubicic, Ancic, Gonzalez, etc.

Guys who got to later rounds of Majors with regularity, not guys in the top ten by virtual default, like Haas, Davydenko are now.

fed is playing his top rivals more often and at later stages in slams. so, this essentially either means that these guys are really good players, capable of consistently reaching sf,f's of slams or that the whole atp field is very poor. the latter idea is ridiculous, so i must assume the former is correct.

Count match-ups vs. viable threats on all surfaces, surface to surface specialists, and so on. Go look at how they performed at the majors more than once. Count the late round appearances, finals and Major titles among them and realize how many were experienced with getting there and getting it done. If one idea is ridiculous, it ain't the latter.

 

[shakes1975]

Interesting facts:



In '93 Edberg reached:

AO Final
RG QF
Wimbledon SF

and at both the AO and Wim, he lost to a guy that he absolutely crushed (gave him only 6 games) just 1.5 yrs back in the USO F. that either means that courier magically improved his game or edberg fell off his. i am pretty sure that it's the latter.

Reached 1 Master's Series final, 2 SF's and 1 QF out of 5 events he played, qualified for the TMC final eight for the 8th time in 9 years and finished the year ranked #5 in the world.

In '94

AO SF. In Masters Events, won 1, finalled in another, reached 2 SF and 1 QF in seven events entered, qualified for his 9th TMC in 10 years and finished the year at #7.

Edberg's rankings

End of '91 ranked #1 for second year in a row
End of '92 ranked #2 won his last slam
End of '93 ranked #5
End of '94 ranked #7
End of '95 ranked #23
End of '96 ranked #14

i don't give a **it about MS, or YEC or other tourneys. i'm only looking at slams. face it, edberg played sampras ONLY TWICE at slams in his whole career, how can he be called a rival ?

Hewitt's rankings

End of 2002 ranked #1 for second year in a row, won his last slam
End of 2003 #17
End of 2004 #3
End of 2005 #4
End of 2006 #20
End of 2007 ?

Oh and Edberg was a 6 time slam winner not a 2 time winner.

edberg was a 6 time slam winner but he only won 1 slam at sampras' expense. i can say that fed played an 8 slam winner in agassi.

hewitt was a 2 time winner only bcos of fed. u take out fed and he would've won a couple more slams.

He finalled in the TMC three straight years from '94 to '96 winning it in '95. In '94 and '96 Sampras beat him in the final and Sampras's wins over him at the majors came on Becker's best slam surface.

becker won a slam in 1991 AO. in 1993 he fell out of the top 10 for the first time since 1985. that was how bad he was playing that yr.

1995-1996, he was good but not good enough. he won the AO in 1996 mainly bcos he didn't play agassi or sampras. it's like saying agassi was good in 2005 bcos he reached the USO F.

To answer your questions:

'93 he was losing in the QF to Sampras at Wimbledon and at the end of the year having wrist surgery.

PLONK !! now i know how much u know about the players. becker had wrist surgery in 1996 (he retired hurt in 1996 wim 3rd rd against some godwin or somebody, and missed the USO that yr due to surgery)

'94 he was winning the USO and ranked #4 in the world.
'96 ranked number 8 in the world.
'97 slipped to 141 (compare to Safin and then count the majors)
'98 back to number 6 after winning five tour events, one a F over Sampras.

i assume u r talking about agassi.

i only care about slams.

1994 USO - he didn't play sampras as sampras lost to yzaga
1996 - he never played sampras
1997 - he was out of the top 100
1998 - he didn't play sampras in any slam.

come to think of it, till 1999, agassi only played sampras 3 times in slams, ONLY 3 times (1993 wim, 1995 AO, 1995 USO). that was some rival.

Between '93 and '99 they played to a h2h of Sampras 14 v. Agassi 7.

BTW Agassi's record against Fed's superior competition:

v. Nadal 0-2
v. Safin 3-3
v. Hewitt 4-4
v. Nalbandian 1-0
v. Roddick 5-1

irrelevant. lendl's record against agassi is 6-2 in favour of lendl. what does that prove ?

And while you're asking questions, you should ask where Safin has been much of this era.

he was in the 2004 AO F, 2005 AO winner. and both times he either lost to the #1 player or beat him. safin is a guy who beat sampras, agassi, roddick, fed, hewitt in slams. he's really good.

The guy he lost to in those FIVE matches, was each time the eventual winner of the event. The other final he lost at Wimbledon was to the second best player of the era and next of that era to enter the Hall of Fame-Agassi.

This "choker" also reached a USO SF, 3 AO QF's and 2 RG QF's.

Ivanisevic won his fourth Wimbledon final in 2001, beating, in order, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman and Rafter in that final.

let's face it, ivanisevic was a choker. it doesn't matter how many matches he lost, it only matters how he lost them. by choking. luckily for him, destiny supported him when he almost choked away the wim 2001 F also.

This Solid Player has won 2 majors at the USO and finalled in two others at Wimbledon. He also reached the SF of the other 2 majors, the AO and RG something Roddick and Hewitt and Safin can't claim.

he won the 1998 USO only bcos sampras was injured.

safin is a much superior player, and so is roddick and hewitt. hewitt won 2 slams, just like rafter, but he also reached USO F, USO SF, AO F, wim SF, USO QF etc. losing to the eventual winner on all except one occasion. roddick reached Wim F twice, wim SF once, USO F, AO SF, losing to the eventual winner every time. safin made the AO F twice, FO SF twice, wim QF etc.

Before you start denouncing Courier's game you should start examining Nadal and Hewitt's.

Courier is a former #1, unlike Nalbandian or anyone else not on your "A list". He won four majors the same count as Safin and Nadal combined and reached the final of 3 others also equalling those two. He also reached the final of all 4 slams. Neither Hewitt nor Nadal can claim that and probably never will.

courier won those 4 slams in transition era. when edberg was past his prime, and becker wasn't even in the picture (just think, becker never played courier in slams).

the only reason why hewitt and nadal didn't win more slams is bcos of fed. if fed was not there, nadal would've been the first player since borg to win wim,FO the same yr. hewitt would've won 2004 USO, and probably 2005 USO also, had fed not been there.

Sampras played Courier in 8 majors, 4 in the QF's, 3 SF's and 1 final.

'93 Sampras beat him in the F of Wimbledon.
'94 Sampras beat him in the SF of the AO.
'94 Courier won in the QF of RG.
'95 Sampras beat Courier in the QF of the USO.
'95 Sampras beat Courier in the SF of the USO.
'96 Sampras beat Courier in the QF of RG.

Sampras played Courier a former #1, 6 times in the later rounds of majors between '93 and '99. If you're questioning games or longevity you better look long and hard at Hewitt.

i don't care about longevity. courier is the only player who played sampras consistently in slams, but he was a mediocre player who got lucky to win 4 slams.

Bruguera is a 2 time RG winner and Sampras split with him there, on Bruguera's best surface.

bruguera was a spent force in 1996. he only regained his form towards the end of the yr.

Sampras's records at the majors vs. others reaching 1 and 2 during just between '93 and '99:

make it '97 AO bcos then we'll have to wait for fed's career till 2009 to verify the results against his rivals.

Please do. And when you do you can then explain what they have done at the majors with any consistency.

ridiculous arguement. how can they win majors when one guy is winning everything ? so, u want to make it a catch-22 situation ? fed is winning everything bcos he's playing clowns. but they are clowns bcos they can't win anything.

illogical.

 

[FiveO]

and at both the AO and Wim, he lost to a guy that he absolutely crushed (gave him only 6 games) just 1.5 yrs back in the USO F. that either means that courier magically improved his game or edberg fell off his. i am pretty sure that it's the latter.

i don't give a **it about MS, or YEC or other tourneys. i'm only looking at slams. face it, edberg played sampras ONLY TWICE at slams in his whole career, how can he be called a rival ?

Edberg lost to a guy, Courier, who was beating everyone, in that time span. He reached 7 0f 10 major finals played during that period. Edberg was #1 '90 through '91 and Courier shoved Edberg off the throne in '92 as Sampras would shove him off in '93.

Your premise can't "give a **it" about what actually occurred because then you'd be forced to acknowledge it:

Sampras was 3-3 h2h with Edberg from '90-92

Sampras was 5-3 h2h with Edberg from '93-95

That's 14.

Roddick is 1-11 with Fed. That's 14.

Nalbandian is 6-8. That's 14.

Safin is 2-7 with Fed. That's 9. By your standards why is Safin a rival? No slam finals in over 2 years now. Oh I see "Could've been a rival" counts.

Has to be because Nadal is 6-3 for 9.

Hewitt is 7-11 h2h w/ Fed. That's 18. Oh but they haven't met in almost 1.5 YEARS including slams and he also hasn't reached a final of a slam in over 2 years.

edberg was a 6 time slam winner but he only won 1 slam at sampras' expense. i can say that fed played an 8 slam winner in agassi.

hewitt was a 2 time winner only bcos of fed. u take out fed and he would've won a couple more slams.

That you're sure of right?

After winning Wimbledon in 2002 Hewitt didn't reach a final of a major until the 2004 USO where he was in fact embarassed by Federer 0, 6 and 0. That's one.

At the 2005 AO he lost to Safin in the final not Fed.
And at the 2005 Wimbledon and USO you're sure that if Hewitt beat Fed in the SF he would have beaten Roddick on grass and who has gone 2-0 vs. Hewitt since '05 or Agassi at the USO, (the over the hill Agassi who finished 3-3 v. Hewitt) in those respective finals? A foregone conclusion, right?
Sure. Good for you.

That's one Hewitt was denied by Fed.

Oh yeah, just like the one Edberg denied Sampras in the '92 USO final and, by your criteria, maybe I get to count the '93 AO SF now too!

Again Hewitt hasn't faced Fed in almost 1.5 years.

becker won a slam in 1991 AO. in 1993 he fell out of the top 10 for the first time since 1985. that was how bad he was playing that yr.

1995-1996, he was good but not good enough. he won the AO in 1996 mainly bcos he didn't play agassi or sampras. it's like saying agassi was good in 2005 bcos he reached the USO F.

You're pretty much arguing through your hat here throwing whatever against the wall to see what sticks. None of it does though.

PLONK !! now i know how much u know about the players. becker had wrist surgery in 1996 (he retired hurt in 1996 wim 3rd rd against some godwin or somebody, and missed the USO that yr due to surgery)

What's your point here? He won the AO before the surgery and lost in the final of the ATP Year End Championships after it and played what is regarded as one of the best matches ever in that final v. Sampras. I'm still trying to figure your point here. Oh yeah, there isn't one. KER-PLONK!

i assume u r talking about agassi.

i only care about slams.

1994 USO - he didn't play sampras as sampras lost to yzaga
1996 - he never played sampras
1997 - he was out of the top 100
1998 - he didn't play sampras in any slam.

come to think of it, till 1999, agassi only played sampras 3 times in slams, ONLY 3 times (1993 wim, 1995 AO, 1995 USO). that was some rival.

With your premise you have to ignore alot of facts. Look at Safin and where he has gone off to. He's a rival to Fed but Agassi isn't to Sampras. Conveninent and disingenuous.

irrelevant. lendl's record against agassi is 6-2 in favour of lendl. what does that prove ?

Hardly. Look at AA's records against after THEY were slam winners or Nalbandian. AA, a past his prime AA, played Fed's best rivals heads up except for Nadal.

he was in the 2004 AO F, 2005 AO winner. and both times he either lost to the #1 player or beat him. safin is a guy who beat sampras, agassi, roddick, fed, hewitt in slams. he's really good.

But Agassi wasn't? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

let's face it, ivanisevic was a choker. it doesn't matter how many matches he lost, it only matters how he lost them. by choking. luckily for him, destiny supported him when he almost choked away the wim 2001 F also.


he won the 1998 USO only bcos sampras was injured.

safin is a much superior player, and so is roddick and hewitt. hewitt won 2 slams, just like rafter, but he also reached USO F, USO SF, AO F, wim SF, USO QF etc. losing to the eventual winner on all except one occasion. roddick reached Wim F twice, wim SF once, USO F, AO SF, losing to the eventual winner every time. safin made the AO F twice, FO SF twice, wim QF etc.

Ivanisevic lost 3 finals to Sampras and Agassi, two of the best ever. Safin lost a major final to Thomas Johansson, BTW another Sampras era holdover. By your standards that ridiculous "choker" tag can then be put on Roddick and Hewitt for the same obtuse reasons.

courier won those 4 slams in transition era. when edberg was past his prime, and becker wasn't even in the picture (just think, becker never played courier in slams).

Transition era? Then what was the Hewitt era? Look at the numbers, just the slam numbers, what each did where, how many finals, who each beat when and then talk about transition era.

Hewitt in comparison is Courier-Lite.

the only reason why hewitt and nadal didn't win more slams is bcos of fed. if fed was not there, nadal would've been the first player since borg to win wim,FO the same yr. hewitt would've won 2004 USO, and probably 2005 USO also, had fed not been there.

Now "what ifs"? Please. And you probably believe that Nadal is going to the Wimbledon final in '07. What would Sampras won if not for Edberg or Courier or Agassi and what would Courier, Agassi, Ivanisevic won if not for Sampras?

i don't care about longevity. courier is the only player who played sampras consistently in slams, but he was a mediocre player who got lucky to win 4 slams.

You're funny. I don't think you intend to be but never the less. Four slams = "lucky" now.

Dear Mr. "I Only Look at Slams Guy",

Courier finaled at 7 of 10 slams in a row. Again compare to Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, any of them. Who doesn't know the players? Or the game for that matter.

bruguera was a spent force in 1996. he only regained his form towards the end of the yr.

make it '97 AO bcos then we'll have to wait for fed's career till 2009 to verify the results against his rivals.

ridiculous arguement. how can they win majors when one guy is winning everything ? so, u want to make it a catch-22 situation ? fed is winning everything bcos he's playing clowns. but they are clowns bcos they can't win anything.

illogical.

You made the parameters and are feeling the need to change them now for some reason. Have fun.

Far from illogical and I never said clowns. My posts are intended to show the depth and in which era it was deeper. Your premise starts with a declarative "are you kidding?" and then proceeds to question everyone that Sampras faced with some fanciful "Drop this, carry the 2, subtract your cat's age" calculations to give the impression that Fed's competition is better than it is.

You want to talk majors?

Hewitt hasn't been to a major final in over two years and didn't face Fed anywhere since 2005.

Safin hasn't faced Fed at a major in two years now and not at all since 2005. What did his ranking slip to last year? 104 was it?

Roddick is about the most consistent slam performer of any of them, which is not a ringing endorsement of the rest, now is it?

Nadal? Yes a great clay courter. A grass courter? At least now people have toned down the hype and are starting to congratulate Rafa for reaching QF's at the other majors. I know you ONLY look at slams so go examine his Wimbledon draw and aside from a half crippled Agassi who did he beat? I know, "but, but, but, but, He's the only guy to take a set off Fed there." What do you get for one set at a major?

Nalbandian? Not a clown but Please.

Whether you believe it or not, this is not a knock on Federer. He has no control over who is or isn't there. He is the most talented player I have seen Put him in Sampras's era and neither wins as many slams IMO and while Sampras is the second most talented player I have seen that in and of itself doesn't dictate the outcome of their late round meetings.

 

[AndrewD]

does that mean federer is the greates if he breaks sampras' record?

No! Based on what Sampras said, breaking his record won't count for anything, just as, when he broke Emerson's record it didn't mean he (Sampras) was the "best ever or whatever. It's just a number".

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

If Sampras is the best player ever, then Federer winning his 15th slam does make him the best ever IMO. If Laver, Gonzalez, or Borg is the best ever that not neccessarily so though.

 

[Kam]

I've seen Federer played up close several times including AO semi and final 07 and he was playing ubelievable. When he played Rodick and Gonzo, many time he just blocked Rod's serves and Gonza's forehand back keeping the ball in play and then eventually Rod and Gonza lost the points. If somone just blocked Sampras's serves backed, I've never seen Smapras gave it away. By the end of the day, I think Federer will adjust but he will not be winning so easily as playing against today's players.
Number of Slams , Federer will have more than Sampras soon. Federer better than Sampras, I am not so sure.

 

[shakes1975]

Edberg lost to a guy, Courier, who was beating everyone, in that time span. He reached 7 0f 10 major finals played during that period. Edberg was #1 '90 through '91 and Courier shoved Edberg off the throne in '92 as Sampras would shove him off in '93.

Your premise can't "give a **it" about what actually occurred because then you'd be forced to acknowledge it:

Sampras was 3-3 h2h with Edberg from '90-92

Sampras was 5-3 h2h with Edberg from '93-95

That's 14.

no, that's not the way to look at it. the correct way to look at it is that edberg lost to a guy (courier) whom he crushed just 1.5 yrs back. and why do u think was that ? bcos edberg fell off from his peak. do u seriously think a peak edberg would lose to courier ?

er, now let's look only at the slams since only slams count, ok. sampras is greater than edberg bcos he won 14 slams to edberg's 6, not bcos he leads 8-6 in H2H against edberg.

sampras faced edberg in slams ONLY twice, and that too before 1993 wim, which can be considered the turning point in sampras' career (just as 2003 wim can be considered the turning point in fed's career).

the only reason he lost the 1992 USO F and 1993 AO SF to edberg was bcos he was still developing as a player.

Nalbandian is 6-8. That's 14.

Roddick is 1-11 with Fed. That's 14.

Safin is 2-7 with Fed. That's 9. By your standards why is Safin a rival? No slam finals in over 2 years now. Oh I see "Could've been a rival" counts.

Has to be because Nadal is 6-3 for 9.

Hewitt is 7-11 h2h w/ Fed. That's 18. Oh but they haven't met in almost 1.5 YEARS including slams and he also hasn't reached a final of a slam in over 2 years.

let's compare slam matches here. edberg played sampras in slams only in 1992 USO F, 1993 AO SF. that's ONLY twice. how can u call him sampras' rival ?

nalbandian played fed in slams in 2003 AO, 2003 USO, 2004 AO, 2005 USO, 2006 FO, that's 5 times and they are still midway through their careers. consider that sampras played agassi in slams only 4 times from 1993 wim to 1999 wim (7 yrs). so, we can wait till 2009 wim and see how many more times fed will play nalbandian.

roddick played fed in slams in 2003 wim, 2004 wim, 2005 wim, 2006 USO, 2007 AO. that's 5 times already and they are both still midway through their careers. now, that's rivalry.

hewitt played fed in 2004 AO, 2004 wim, 2004 USO, 2005 wim, 2005 USO. that's 5 times again, and hewitt is also as young as fed. so, they are gonna play again, for sure.

don't give me that 1.5 yrs since he last played fed in slams. that's not the only point i was making. my point is hewitt is making the second week of slams consistently. the couple of times he didn't play fed, he lost in the AO F to safin, lost in the 2006 USO QF to roddick. agassi, ivanisevic, becker etc. were losing to some jokers before the 4th round most of the times.

After winning Wimbledon in 2002 Hewitt didn't reach a final of a major until the 2004 USO where he was in fact embarassed by Federer 0, 6 and 0. That's one.

At the 2005 AO he lost to Safin in the final not Fed.
And at the 2005 Wimbledon and USO you're sure that if Hewitt beat Fed in the SF he would have beaten Roddick on grass and who has gone 2-0 vs. Hewitt since '05 or Agassi at the USO, (the over the hill Agassi who finished 3-3 v. Hewitt) in those respective finals? A foregone conclusion, right?
Sure. Good for you.

That's one Hewitt was denied by Fed.

Oh yeah, just like the one Edberg denied Sampras in the '92 USO final and, by your criteria, maybe I get to count the '93 AO SF now too!

Again Hewitt hasn't faced Fed in almost 1.5 years.

hewitt didn't make the second week of some slams during that period mainly bcos he lost to fed before that. look, he lost to fed in the 2004 AO 4th rd, lost to fed in the 2004 Wim QF. u r fighting with a phantom here. i don't care if hewitt would've beaten roddick at wim those 2 times. my point is either hewitt or roddick are always playing fed in the latter stages of slams. that's more than can be said for sampras' rivals.

nadal played fed 3 times in 2 yrs.

What's your point here? He won the AO before the surgery and lost in the final of the ATP Year End Championships after it and played what is regarded as one of the best matches ever in that final v. Sampras. I'm still trying to figure your point here. Oh yeah, there isn't one. KER-PLONK!

my point is becker was a spent force from 1991 USO (lost in the 3rd rd t0 Paul Haarhuis) till 1995 wim. that's 4 yrs of tennis life.

becker and edberg, along with lendl, were from the previous era, winning their first slam 5 yrs before sampras. 5 yrs in tennis is a long time. u cannot call them sampras' rivals.

With your premise you have to ignore alot of facts. Look at Safin and where he has gone off to. He's a rival to Fed but Agassi isn't to Sampras. Conveninent and disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

safin is as much a rival to fed as agassi was to sampras. that was my point. people hype the agassi-sampras rivalry so much that they forget that agassi only faced sampras 4 times in 6 yrs.

Hardly. Look at AA's records against after THEY were slam winners or Nalbandian. AA, a past his prime AA, played Fed's best rivals heads up except for Nadal.

irrelevant. a young, inexperienced fed beat a 7-time (and 4-time defending champ) wimbledon champ on centre court at wim. going by ur logic, i rest my case. 29 yr old becker beat 21 yr old kafelnikov in the 1996 AO QF. what does that say about kafelnikov as a player ? in the 1996 USO 1st round, 30 yr old edberg beat fresh wimbledon champ krajicek (who creamed sampras at that same wimbledon) in straight sets. what does that say about krajicek as a player ? in fact, krajicek continued to win against sampras for a number of yrs before sampras finally beat him in the 2000 USO QF.

Ivanisevic lost 3 finals to Sampras and Agassi, two of the best ever. Safin lost a major final to Thomas Johansson, BTW another Sampras era holdover. By your standards that ridiculous "choker" tag can then be put on Roddick and Hewitt for the same obtuse reasons.

ivanisevic lost to sampras (esp. to agassi) bcos he choked. hewitt and roddick were beaten by fed fair and square. also, how well did ivanisevic do outside wim ? compare that to hewitt's and roddick's performance in slams everywhere.

Transition era? Then what was the Hewitt era? Look at the numbers, just the slam numbers, what each did where, how many finals, who each beat when and then talk about transition era.

Hewitt in comparison is Courier-Lite.

yes, hewitt won his slams in transition era. but the only reason why he won less slams than courier is bcos fed stopped him earlier.

Now "what ifs"? Please. And you probably believe that Nadal is going to the Wimbledon final in '07. What would Sampras won if not for Edberg or Courier or Agassi and what would Courier, Agassi, Ivanisevic won if not for Sampras?

u r fighting phantoms again. i am just looking at how often all these players played sampras in the second week of slams, starting from 1993 AO till 1997 AO, and comparing them to how many times fed played his rivals from 2003 AO till 2007 AO. that's all.